Campaigns Wikia talk:Requests for Adminship
Requirements Maybe new admins should require a minimum amount of edits (like 50?). Also, maybe candidates should only be nominated if they have a clean criminal record (never having reached 3RR). --ШΔLÐSΣИ 02:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC) ::I think the "clean criminal record" is a bit steep. People can reform. Maybe "no recent major infractions"? And the edit count need not be specified, since I threw in a bit about having "a significant number of good contributions," which could be just a personal number people would like to see to support or something like that. Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 03:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC) :::OK, I like the "no recent criminal infactions". It now seems Lou franklin would also like to restrict party affiliation CW:PPAG. We'll have to discuss that. --ШΔLÐSΣИ 13:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC) :::I would say that minor infractions should not interfere if they are not recent, but a major willful, destructive violation of the rules (a streak of vandalism, violating the 3rr ruling after being involved in the original edit war (so they can't claim ignorance), etc.) should preclude a person from ever becoming an admin. They might be able to reform and be a valuable member, but anyone who has demonstrated that type of disregard for the rules should not be charged with enforcing them. --whosawhatsis? 03:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC) :Should there be questions and stuff candidates have to answer, as on Wikipedia? Or will we mercifully skip the bureacracy in favor of real contributions? (so much for NPOV) Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 03:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC) ::I think it's too soon for that. Maybe we'll keep it simple for now :). --ШΔLÐSΣИ 13:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Vote *I guess the only thing left to do is vote. How do we ensure a high participation? --ШΔLÐSΣИ 02:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC) :There's always the sitenotice at the top, if you're desperate. How many users still actively contribute (i.e., in the last week or two)? Of course, I don't think this has been run by Angela or Jimbo Wales yet, and I think only staff can promote to adminship now, so we need to see their reactions. Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 02:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC) ::Very true. I'll contact them. --ШΔLÐSΣИ 02:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC) We're waiting for Staff for these first two elections, but for future reference, how long do we want to keep a vote like this open? Chadlupkes 22:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Self-nomination Whosawhatsis, would you oppose this statement: You may either nominate yourself or another user may nominate you based on your comment on Jfingers88's nomination? Anyone else have views on self-nomination? --Nkayesmith 08:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC) I personally, support self-nomination. --Nkayesmith 08:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC) :I don't think there's anything wrong with self-nomination. Ultimately, it's the vote that decides. --ШΔLÐSΣИ 11:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC) :You can nominate yourself, but anyone who does so is pretty much guaranteed not to get my vote. --whosawhatsis? 20:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC) ::Let's take a step back here. What we're doing is selecting/electing people with extra power and extra responsibility to maintain our infrastructure in accordance with the will of the overall community. Sounds a lot like elected representatives in the 'real world'. And our candidates for public office almost always "self-nominate". I didn't ask to be nominated for Bureaucrat, but I was one of the first volunteers to become an admin on the site. And the support that I've gotten from (almost ;) everyone I hope comes not from my positions or the fact that I want to do it, but because it is the feeling of the community that I will be able to do the job in a fair manner and that I'll do my best to make sure that we build the site together to be useful for everyone. Self-nominating doesn't bother me. The objective is to put people in positions of authority and responsibility that can do the job. That's the overall aim of any elections, whether in cyberspace or realspace. Chadlupkes 20:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC) :::Yes, and the self-nomination thing is one of the biggest contributors to political corruption in the 'real world'... that and the partisan politics that would make any attempt to prohibit self-nomination useless. We're a much smaller community, and even those with only a couple of edits are more active in the community than the average citizen in the 'real world', so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect potential admins to have enough good activity to draw the attention of another to nominate him/her. If more admins are needed, people will be looking harder for potential nominees, helping to ensure that we have the right number (unlike the 'real world', where there is a fixed number of political offices and a relatively fixed number of political parties vying for those offices). --whosawhatsis? 20:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC) ::::Good points. But isn't it important to have people actually wanting to do the job be nominated? I'm not disagreeing with your concerns, it just caught my attention that you would by default vote against anyone who inquired about a position like admin. Being interested in doing more than just a user can do, and having shown a fair hand in dealing with problems, as well as skill in using the extra abilities in a responsible manner; those are the qualities that I'm looking for from anyone, whether nominated by others or self-nominated. Just my thoughts. Chadlupkes 20:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC) :::::People can always decline the nomination if they don't want it. If someone isn't nominated by someone else, logically either the person hasn't demonstrated their suitability for the position, or there are enough admins at the time, and nobody is looking for potential nominees, in which case the person's name is sure to come up when the need arises if they keep up the good work. --whosawhatsis? 21:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Ok, at a future stage, if someone is stepping away for a while, or if we come to the conclusion that someone was a bad choice and is removed, we'll have a better idea of how many sysops we need. At that point, when we need to bring someone up to that level, we can post an opening and people can do the nominations. How this is going to work this time, I really have no idea. The Staff has to step in for both of these "elections". Until they do on mine, I can't do anything. Chadlupkes 21:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC) :If there's a desperate need for more, it might make sense to ask for nominations, but for the most part it shouldn't be necessary. Those of us who are around a lot, especially the existing admins (who are the best source of nominations) should be able to tell for ourselves if it seems that more admins are needed, and those who think that they are needed will keep an eye out for candidates. Exceedingly good candidates will stand out even if you're not actively looking. In this way, the system should self-regulate quite nicely. It's basically a system of supply and demand for democracy. --whosawhatsis? 21:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Chadlupkes' election First of all, congratulations Chad! Also, I'd like to ask someone to save the election in an archive and leave a link on this article (something like "Past elections"). Sorry, I don't have time to do it today (studying hard)! --ШΔLÐSΣИ 11:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC) :Got it. It's at Campaigns Wikia:Requests for Adminship/Bsuccess (for B'ureacratship '''success'ful nominations). I added links for successful and unsuccessful adminship elections at the same time. Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'''e]]rs88 12:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Criteria Everyone interested is welcome to put their name in the hat, but we don't need dozens of admins. So we do need to create some criteria for when positions will be open. Some possible criteria could be: *Timezones, so we can have someone watching and working 24hrs a day *Special expertise in a subject *active in politics in a particular region (US, Europe, Africa, etc.) other ideas? Chadlupkes 14:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC) And then what? :First in the interest of honest disclosure, I am currently an admin here. (I did not ask to be one, but was willing to help when this Wikia first started. I have been an admin or bureaucrat on a few Wikia, and I guess I had a good track record.) This "policy" states how admins will be nominated. And personally I don't care if it's by self nomination or others. However, I think it has a big hole because it does not state how the decision about whether to approve the nomination shall be made. Did I miss something? Admins should be chosen on the basis of whether they can make fair decisions to "keep it clean". That is, they should do their best to moderate, to remove vandalism, to ban vandals and if absolutely necessary to ban other users who make it difficult for the wiki to accomplish its mission "for politics to become more intelligent, and for democracy to really involve the people". It is not the job of an admin to enforce a particular point of view. As an individual participant, I can push a particular point of view, but I should not use the administrative powers to ban someone or delete a page just because I disagree. We need admins who know the difference between the times they are acting as any wiki editor may, and when they are acting for the community as a whole (the only times the special admin abilities should be used). --CocoaZen 02:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)